By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Another XBLA Hit, and Jim Sterling rates it 5.5

maverick40 said:
If reviewers actually used the proper 1 to 10 scale like they should. A 6.5 means that it is actually a decent game. I think edge are the only site that actually try to stick to the scale but they have been caught out as xbox fanboys, so they have lost all credibility.


I actually agree with you, given I wouldn't say that edge are xbox360 fanboys, just that they like the 360 the most and that presents itself as being biased from time to time. 



 

Around the Network
TruckOSaurus said:

I hate LittleBigPlanet with a passion but I know it's not a bad game. The controls work, the building tools are plentiful, the community is vast, it's just not a game for me. If I were to review it (profesionnally) I couldn't slap a 3 on it just because I can't stand the floaty physics.

I had a similarly negative experience with LittleBigPlanet, and I wouldn't rate it a 3 either, but if somebody were to offer me a clear and concise argument on why they believe the game should be scored 3/10, I would have no issue with that.

Speaking specifically about Jim Sterling's reviews, here are the closing bits:

---

"From Dust has a level of charm to it, that cannot be denied. It's different, it's impressively designed, and a player could become addicted simply to watching magma roll down a hill. When the time comes to make an actual videogame of these gorgeous physics and unique ideas, however, From Dust falters with a considerable measure of inelegance.

There's just not enough content and too many restrictions for the game to be truly engaging. It keeps the player at arm's length, removes any motivation for feeling responsible and, at its very worst, annoys with persistent feelings of helplessness and characters who couldn't tell their arses from their elbows. The power to shape mountains and carve waterways would make for a wonderful gimmick in a more fleshed out game, but as a central concept it's just not strong enough to build an entire experience around. "

http://www.destructoid.com/review-from-dust-207068.phtml

"This is Bastion's main problem. It provides the illusion of depth and freshness, without really delivering any substance. There's a gorgeous soundtrack and bright visuals, but they serve only to garnish an unfulfilling blend of oversimplified button mashing and disconnected narrative, too blandly delivered to draw one in, and too vaguely presented to gain an emotional edge. 

There is fun to be had with Bastion, most certainly, but my advice is to keep one's expectations low. If a player goes in expecting a simple dungeon crawler with little to offer besides mindless combat and the base joys of acquiring power, then one will leave quite satisfying. Expecting a revolutionary experience with dynamic narration and more than a few tugs on the heartstrings will, inevitably, lead to deflation. Bastionpresents the idea of a dynamic, engaging roleplaying experience, but the product itself is a far cry from its ambition.

Is the game worth playing? Certainly. It's a decent little adventure that will provide enough solid gameplay to be worth the money. Just make sure one expects no more than that, and it'll be a most worthy purchase.Bastion is fun enough for what it is, but it does not transcend to the levels that it would like you to believe it does."

http://www.destructoid.com/review-bastion-206398.phtml

---

He isn't just saying "these games are bad!" He has found what he thinks are fundamental flaws with these two games, and his review and score reflect them accordingly. Someone else might have a totally different experience and rate these games higher or lower, and we, as consumers, should have no problem with game reviewers being unafraid to flaunt their opinions. Anything less would be sterile mush. It's impossible to rate a game objectively, so why try?



Even though there's a CHASM of difference between our game interests, I like Jim sterling. Hell, he even gave Patapon a 6/10, he hates Ico, and loves Killzone but so fucking what? He has a particular flavor about him... some might think he taste like shit, I however enjoy his opinions and recognize them such... opinions.

Personally, I think SoA titles tend to be caught in some sort of massive hype tornado and are subsequently reviewed far more favorably than normal. This is just my personal opinion/experience after playing the abusively lauded Castle Crashers, Braid, Limbo, etc. and coming away highly disappointed almost always.

Perhaps Jim and I share the same opinion for once... whoa... O_o



Whats important isnt really the score but the consistency of those score. Is he consistent with those type of score? If yes, then just personally take his 6 as 9 and his 3 as 6. If he isnt then its something else. Something sure, theres too much of 7+ when it comes to video games review in general.

Beside, the conclusions of his reviews posted 2-3 post earlier justify quite well the score he gives. Maybe other reviewers gives too high score or dont lower score enough for flaws. With that said, I dont know if he is consistent with this way of rating from game to game.



gumby_trucker said:
Reasonable said:
Seece said:
Wagram said:
Though I hardly ever agree with his reviews. I love how you all flame on him for having an: OPINION.

There comes a point where opinion is wrong, this is the difference between a bad and a good reviewer, being able to put aside your personal likes and dislikes and judging a game on what it is.


Agreed. As a professional reviewer his opinions should be informed and balanced against personal taste.  To score really low a game has to be broken, buggy and so on.  If the game works well but is mediocre that's your 5 out of 10, a decent game should be 7 out of 10 - i.e. a good example of the genre without any major flaws.

It's worth remembering though, that as in all things, not everyone is equally good at their job no matter what it is.  There are good critics, great critics and medicore critics.  Sterling just seems to be aiming for controversy for the sake of it most of the time.  Pity as on occasion, when he actually performs professionally, he does an okay job.

I wish people would realize the difference between uninformed opinions (which we all have but which, to be blunt, normally mean jack squat on any specific topic) and informed opinions.  If a professional reviewer is just delivering opinions and not informed opinions then they're not fufilling the job spec.

I'm sorry to be harsh but I think this is bullshit. Nobody is 100% objective, and claiming you are is usually hypocritical at best. Reviewers find success because their own, personal taste is representative of a large enough segment of the consumer base. There always has been and always will be room for many of them. The facts should be reported and credit should be given where credit is due, but at the end of the day if personal taste is removed from the equation then all reasonably good games would end up receiving the same exact score: a "Solid 7", because you can always find something in the design or execution that isn't perfect and that somebody out there might possibly not enjoy. The same is obviously true for the game's good points too.
This is exactly the kind of thinking that brings us one assembly-line clone after another, and makes publishers scared shitless  about trying anything different!

You can't argue for diversity in gaming and also argue against outlying opinions at the same time!

It used to be that anything below a 6 meant the game was technically broken or unplayable. Perhaps we are thankfully moving ahead to a point where these issues aren't as common. Movies can still be considered terrible without the projector having to burst into flames, you know! 

I don't think you really got my point juding by your analogy and other points.  You're also confusing a score (which by the way I don't like anyway, scores are a fairly stupid idea overall for games or films or books) with driving innovation.  The point I'm making is something (a car, a film, a book, a game) which is average should indeed always get an average score.  If you don't have that the whole idea of a review (and associated score) becomes meaningless.  There has to be established criteria otherwise the whole thing is irrelevant.

Of course everyone has bias, but a professional reviewer should be aware of and compensating otherwise their review is simply and opinion - which is my other main point.  TBH whether films or games most reviews are rubbish.  Only a few reviers are actually informed enough to be useful - the rest are no different from any other gamer, which makes the whole thing somewhat farcical.

Taken at face value your views would see a system where if I want I can give a perfectly good game 1 out of 10 and a broken, flawed game 9 out of 10 just because I want to.  That's fine for the internet forums (which are mainly uniformed views of little weight) but a shabby state of affairs for so called professional reviwers.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

Around the Network

Jim Sterling is actually the best anti-reviewer out there, if you just buy whatever he hates on and ignore whatever he likes (with the exception of bayonetta, that reviewed well and is still a good game somehow) you will end up with a quality game library.

He is like the Jacques Derrida of gaming, though far less intelligent (in that his 'anti' review decency is not happening with any of his intention or awareness).

But you can't ignore he does serve a purpose..., though I must say I commonly despise reading his "reviews" also



PLAYSTATION NATION LADY OF JRPGS

Favourite Games of 2013 1.Tomb Raider(PS3) 2.Atelier Ayesha(PS3) 3.Virtues Last Reward (Vita)